×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

WPS

WPS

(OP)
During an In process inspection of supplier the third party inspector found the supplier using ER70S-6 instead of the WPS specified ER70S-2 filler metal. The supplier agreed to remove the S-6 and reweld with the required S-2. My question is will this be justified NCR on supplier? I know the S2 and S6 have the same F# and SFA # tensil stregth is like 10k difference and then you have the fact of re welding.

RE: WPS

These are non-essential variables, assuming no change in A-No and the original PQR used ER70S-2. A new WPS could have been written to specify ER70S-6 without requalification.

RE: WPS

(OP)
Would this warrent a NCR? Not using what the WPS specified.

RE: WPS

Dear Vanche, NCR can be issued on supplier for not following the WPS.

RE: WPS

If by 'supplier' you mean the welding contractor, yes, an NCR would be appropriate as they did not follow the WPS. This process breakdown is substantiated by your comment that they agreed to remove the S-6 and reweld with the required S-.

RE: WPS

S-2

RE: WPS

An NCR is an ideal way to document the nonconformance, provide the corrective action and document completion of the corrective action.

RE: WPS

E70 S6 does not meet the chemical analysis of A1. E70 S2 or S3 do meet this requirment so there is considerable difference and sice a change in the A number is an essential variable you always need separate procedures for these two wires.

RE: WPS

VanChe the issue regrumble refers to stems from the fact that per the consumable specification SFA 5.18 , both Mn and Si can exceed the values permitted for an A1 analysis. In my experience, most manufacturers ensure their products fall withing the specification limits for these elements so they conform to an A1 analysis. You could possibly verify compliance by reviewing the MTR for the filler used.
Similarly E71T-1 and some other classifications within SFA 5.20 for flux core can exceed the limit for Mn imposed by QW 442 for A1, but we use tons of it every year and always get material that meets A1.

RE: WPS

weldtek
Our procedures must be aproved by TSSA and as far as I know they have always taken the stace that because the consumable can exceed the limits imposed by SFA 5.18 the wire is not aproved. Do you specify in your procedure that the MTR for filler metal is inspected and aproved before use?

RE: WPS

Yes. I generally handle it by note that says ' Verify by MTR'. Sometimes customer ask for something additional such as an actual MTR for the consumables to be used and something tying it to the work we're doing for them. As I'm sure is true for most companies involved with welding, we don't accept consumables without proper documentation so it's not difficult to comply.
I'm in Texas and have not dealt with TSSA but I have submitted WPS' to other jurisdictions in Canada without issues.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources